While on the Conference Call:To mute your phone: press: 4*To raise you hand for a question or comment: press: 5*

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;use this link for more: contact information.In conjunction with our Success Network We announced our participation in the Self Made Man Conteston our Facebook and Twitter pages.

What is the new Self Made Man platform?It’s kinda like Netflix, but better.The content and platform will help you change your life, and the world…

It launches: February 20thAnd, to celebrate,they’re giving away over $35,000 in cash and prizes!

Greetings,I am new to this forum and have a question. After reading several posts in this forum and also a fair amount of additional material (some admittedly suspect as it is from the uninformed segments of the patriot movement) I am wondering if filing a "Statement" with the IRS on or before April 15th each year is a wise idea. In the IRC where it outlines filing requirements it uses the term "Statements" in a sentence of the code that also indicates the use of various IRS forms for filing (I do not have the exact IRC reference). I was wondering if this term "statement" would justify the yearly filing, on or before April 15, of a self generated form similar to the one you described to the ski patrolman on the lift outlined in your well articulated post. (I forgot the name of the post Subject:The Key.). It would appear that this would show a consistent pattern of yearly response that would establish (for potential future court proceedings) your attempt to not evade a supposed liability with the added benefit of indicating consistently that you could find no personal liability that extended to you as the sovereign, only to the Social Security Administration trust. This seems to me to be the game winning kick!

Hello Bob,I would recommend reading every page of Team Law's website, and every forum post. Then I would recommend gettingall the audio tapes offered in the Team Law store. If you do these things you will understand the true nature of the social security numberand know what to do concering any tax liability questions you might have at the current time.

Thank you copacetic,I can see the value of doing this due diligence you suggest. So far I am aware that the ssn is a trust agreement that pidgeon holes me* into Corp government control on every contract I* enter into using the number (really their number) which was given to the entity that bears the exact same spelling$ as my given birth name. I guess my concern is really about covering all my bases so that I beat the IRS before court if possible.

Robert

(The red “*” and “$” were inserted by Admin as reference points he will respond to below.)

.

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John P. Curran, 1790

Bob,If you are going to generate a form for the trust to file with the IRS, it is necessary to know exactly what you are doing, why you are doing it, and to use the correct language as to avoid creating any general partnership with the trust. I was in a similar position, where I needed to draft a tax return document for the trust I lend concsiousness and physical capacity to. Being a beneficiary, I had the priveledge of utilizing Team Law's live document review process as an aid in getting the form drafted correctly so that it will properly fulfill the intent of the trust in accordance with law. I found the live document review process to be extremely beneficial and educational. Support like that requires that a person be a beneficiary. In the Visitor section you can read Becoming a beneficiary. I found that the quickest and easiest way to become a beneficiary is through The Way of KingsTM

Perhaps it might be beneficial to explain why I am feeling a need to file anything with IRS. I have been diligently filing 1040's for years until I came to an awareness of what the tax code actually says (or more correctly doesn't say) from my very sporadic reviews and readings up to this point. When I sold my home last year, in spite of my best efforts to keep the escrow company from filing a 1099-S, they did it, so now I am in need of filing something that gets in front of that $700,000.00 freight train. Of course you can imagine my concern over making a mistake with that kind of money involved. Part of me wants to just not file and play defense, but I also enjoy sleeping at night! I'm conflicted. Seven days until the magical day of reckoning (April 15) and I am now apparently bottlenecked into possibly filing an extension until Oct 15 so I can use that time to systematically start asking for filing requirement information from IRS, congress and all the other parties who will brush me off and be a very valuable part of my records for a future defense. Of course the only way I can file said extension as far as I can see without prejudicing my rights is with a restrictive clause written above my signature that says something like "signature invalid without attached explanatory document" wherein I would reserve my rights and very carefully explain how I am unsure of my actual filing status, not sure if I am the "person" or "individual" who is ambiguously hinted at as liable in the code to file a 1040, etc.

Any flaws in that approach? Any other way to buy time?

I would greatly appreciate a response.

Thank you all in advance!

Divinebob

PS: I mean no offense by the use of the word divine in my screen name. It reminds me that I am a son of God and as his son capable of become just like him someday, possibly in this life!

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John P. Curran, 1790

Divinebob:Though we appreciate the urgency you expressed in your last response, Copacetic and SimplyThinkDreams did already give you the proper response for our Open Forum—in essence that response is, you need to learn more so you will know how to respond.

A more instructive answer to your inquiries would require Team Law beneficiary level of support; which is why, you received the responses you have already received from Copacetic and SimplyThinkDreams.

Like SimplyThinkDreams suggested, you need Team Law’s editorial review service, which is only available to our beneficiaries. Thus, regardless of the urgency you perceive we are Charter bound to only provide that service to Team Law beneficiaries.

Beyond that, in your first response in this topical thread we inserted an “*” and an “$” as points that needed a corrective comment regarding your understanding. Accordingly, the “*” was placed to refer to the trap you apparently fell into—that being, you seem to be logically equating the trust created by the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”)with yourself in a mandatory general partnership. No such general partnership exists, unless you create it on your own with your own logic and or respective actions.

Thus, when you say, “the ssn is a trust agreement that pidgeon holes me…”; we see two dramatic flaws:

The social security number is not a trust—it is merely a number that the SSA registered to uniquely identify and distinguish that trust from any other person.

Neither that number nor that trust “pigeonhole” anyone in any way.

Regarding our reference point “$”, you alleged: “the entity that bears the exact same spelling”; however, we would venture to say that they spelled the Trust’s name with all capital letters and if there is a middle word in that name it likely was a one letter word where your given name is a proper noun spelled with only the initial letter of each word capitalized and if you have a middle name and you were to abbreviate that name to only show the initial letter capitalized followed by a period (to indicate the abbreviation). Not knowing your actual name, we can only guess at these differences but when it comes to the spelling of such words, these issues can describe critical differences of distinction. Thus, we question that allegation that the SSA created the name of the Trust to be exactly the same as your name. Of course, it is possible that they could have; but, even that would not make the names the same. While John Paul Getty (the man) was alive he formed a trust and named it, “J. Paul Getty”, which is the exact name he always went by through his life. Still, his name was his name and the name of the trust is the name of the trust—accordingly, they are not the same name. One name names the trust and one name names the man.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Bob,No need to worry about filing a "Statement" with the IRS. The 1040 booklet says that you only have to file a "return or statement" If you are "Liable" to do so. Seeing as there is no liability for income taxes in the Internal Revenue Code, you do not need to file with the IRS for Income Taxes. If however you are enganged in any number of taxable activities, that is a different story all together.

The instructions to the 1040 say that you must file for any taxes you are "Liable for" the mention of Code Sections "6001, 6011, and 6012(a) in the statement are misleading and do not establish "Liability" for the tax!! Here is what the statement in the "Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice" says…

"Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a), and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for." (Emphasis added)

For illustration purposes I will include Code Sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) so you can see the misleading wording in them. Then I will include a few Code Sections that clearly establish "Liability" for their taxes respectively so you can see how easy the Code really is to read and understand when the IRS wants it to be…

In, 26 USC 6001, the compilers of the USC wrote:Notice or regulation requiring records, statements, and special returns.Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. (Emphasis added)

Also in, 26 USC 6011, the compilers of the USC wrote:General requirement or return, statement, or list.(a) General rule.When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include the information required by such forms or regulations. (Emphasis added)

In, 26 USC 6012, the compilers of the USC wrote:Persons required to make returns of income.(a) General rule. Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following; (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual…(Emphasis added)

Notice the three Code Sections mentioned in the 1040 booklet never establish "Liability" or who is "Liable" for "any" taxes!!! The wording is intentionally misleading and confusing to the layperson reading it. They merely say "Every person liable" or "any person made liable" without ever establishing who actually is liable for said tax.

Now let’s look at some Code Sections that do establish "Liability" for their taxes respectively so you can see how clearly the Code reads when the IRS wants it to…

In, 26 USC 5005, the compilers of the USC wrote:Persons liable for tax.(a) General.The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed by section5001(a)(1) (Emphasis added)

In, 26 USC 5703, the compilers of the USC wrote:Liability for tax and method of payment.(a) Liability for tax.(1) Original liability.The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed by section 5701. (Emphasis added)

And in, 26 USC 4401, the compilers of the USC wrote:Imposition of tax.(c) Persons liable for taxEach person who is engaging in the business of accepting wagers shall be liable for and pay the tax under this subchapter on all wagers placed with him. (Emphasis added)

Now let’s look at what the United States Congress stated about the "Income tax"; noting these are the people who write the tax code and the laws of this Nation.

Senator John E. Ensign wrote:I cannot point to a specific place in the law where it says you must pay income taxes.

Congressman Dan Burton wrote:You are correct in your assertion that the word “liability” or terminology “liability for incometaxes” is not contained in any Section of the Internal Revenue Code

Transcribed from a conversation between the publicist Aaron Russo and Congressman Ron Paul:

Aaron Russo: “Is there a law that requires people to file a 1040?”Congressman Ron Paul: “Not explicitly, but it's certainly implied.”Aaron Russo: “Well implied by force; but is there a law?”Congressman Ron Paul: “I cannot cite a law, no, I cannot…you know if they think it's a law and they have all the guns; you know it's an authoritarian approach.”

Now let's see what other noted people have to say about the Income Tax:

On, May 25, 1956, quoting, T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of the IRS, U.S. News & World Report wrote:Were confiscating property now, that’s socialism, it’s written into the communist manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him.

Mao Tse-tung wrote:Every Communist must grasp the truth: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across the truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.

In, Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d. 453, 455-456 (Tenn. 1960), the court wrote:Since the Right to receive income or earnings is a Right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege.

In 2003, US District Court Judge, James C. Fox wrote:If you... examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.

Henry Kissinger wrote:The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.

In 1953, in the, IRS House Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearings, the Head of ATF, Dwight E. Avis wrote:Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply…

In May 1983, in Williamsburg, VA, President Ronald Reagan wrote:Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it's time we rebelled.

Kravmike,Thanks for the information. I have begun to do the work of reading the income tax code to become hopelessly confused by it's incomprehensibility as is suggested by team law. Doing so is tactically necessary, some would say critically important, in order to have first hand knowledge that will certainly be tested in a court action. In other words knowing that it is impossible to know anything concrete about the income tax is critical in any defense you attempt to mount, thereby putting the burden of proof on the IRS to prove you are liable to an incomprehensible code, which is impossible!

The extremely restrictive phraseology of the code as it attempts to impose an income tax liability has been something I have noticed over the years and is one of the main reasons I started questioning taxation a few years back. I have been fortunate enough to stand up to and directly question the agents from the IRS I have been in contact with and point out these restrictive wordings in the code to which there has never once been a substantive, on point response. (This is extremely valuable proof in the records I have been compiling) Fortunately I have secured this record of IRS obfuscations in the form of letters that I sent using a process called "certificate of service" delivery, which is basically using a notary to witness a disinterested third party mail notarized demand letters so that the evidence is automatically secured and admissible in court. Using certificate of service delivery is an up front in your face process. Team law uses "content notarized mail" which is equally beneficial and in many ways tactically superior to certificate of service delivery.

The code sections that you cited which describe tax requirements for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are very specific as to who is liable and therefore very important evidence in my view that would buttresses the stance about the income tax code being incomprehensible by comparison.

Divinebob

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John P. Curran, 1790

KravMike:Team Law has addressed the issue you addressed regarding the need for filing returns for many years. You referred to the “1040 booklet”; by that we assume you were referring to the booklet that comes with IRS Form 1040. However, as we have consistently shown, to get to that form or to its respective booklet (which, by the way, has no effect in law), you would first have to find an applicable law. The apparent problem with that is, no one has been able to either find or understand such a law. Accordingly, you cannot obey, honor, sustain, comply, compel or enforce a law that either does not exist or cannot be found.

To that some would say: “Well, IRS sure does a lot of enforcing that which we said, "cannot be enforced".” To that we would respond: “They are not enforcing the non-existent law; rather, they are enforcing the presumption that such a law exists; the remedy to that is learn the law and apply it.”

Accordingly, regarding the IRS Form 1040 (and or its respective booklet), we would not consider it as having any merit unless we could first find a law that applied any responsibility to use that form. Beyond such a law, the use of that form would remain inapplicable and could be attributed as a violation of the criminal code’s (United States Code Title 18) limitation against filing any false information to IRS. Such is the danger of filing any form or information with IRS absent a law that requires the same.

Thus, we would not file anything with them (except inquiries that do not provide them with any information they do not already have) unless we could first find and understand a law that compels the same.

However, such matters are the nature of things that are more effectively handled in our Beneficiary Forum where we can address them more in a manner that would be in keeping with the function of Team Law; that is, where we can better help people learn how to learn the law and its application. Addressing such matters here in our Open Forum leads to discussions that have to be moved off to the Beneficiary Forum due to their technical detail.

Also, unlike the tax protestors, we do not favor the practice of using out of context quotes and unsupportable referenced remarks that have no citable source; for example:If we look at the list of quotes you used in your comment, we find un-cited “quotes” from Senator John E. Ensign, Congressman Dan Burton, Mao Tse-tung, Sir Winston Churchill, US District Court Judge, James C. Fox, Henry Kissinger, the Head of ATF, Dwight E. Avis and President Ronald Reagan. In fact, every quote you provided, with the exception of the code citations was provided with no verifiable citation. As such they have no merit to us. Also, it is usually our practice not to provide such quotes; rather, we prefer to help people learn how to find applicable quotes from sources that have the effect of being of use in a court of law. None of those were, because they were all either inapplicable to the subject matter or they were not an authoritative citable source. Thus, regardless of how good they appear (or sound), they will not support any viable claim and would only be used to label their promoter as an ignorant tax protestor.

Another example that points to this same problem is the logical progression of statements made for the effect of getting agreement but directly contradicting the subject of a statement is as follows:

KravMike wrote:Now let's see what other noted people have to say about the Income Tax:

Then you provided a list of eight quotes, however four of the quotes you listed had nothing to do with income taxes and three of those were not even related to taxation—they were presented as hype. The balance of those quotes (except the one with the court citation) were unusable to anyone because they were made without proper citations and were from un-authoritative sources.

Thus, though we liked the way your post began, and we generally agree with the overall point you were making (if that point is, people need to learn the law and apply it instead of ignorantly doing what they do because someone told them that they have to do it) we thought it necessary to review it critically and use it to show what not to do when supporting a legal argument. Thus, we hope this critical review is taken in the way we intend it, that is to be helpful to you and to all of our readers.

Further, this topical thread has reached the technical level limit we must observe for this Open Forum on the topic of taxation. Thus, to address this issue further our forum users will have to have Beneficiary’s Private Forum access. Accordingly, Team Law beneficiaries will find access to such topics in the Beneficiary’s Private Forum’s lead article as well as in many other articles found within that forum.